The Myth of a Christian Nation, Part 10

In chapter 7 of Myth..., Greg offers two hot topic examples of evangelical Christians in America being the "moral police" or "moral guardians" and some very interesting commentary on these issues as well.

1. Homosexual Marriage

To illustrate, more than a few have noticed the comic irony in the fact that the group most vocal about "the sanctity of marriage," namely evangelical Christians, happens to be the group with the highest number of divorces in the United States, which itself has the highest divorce rate in the world [cites 2 articles, in addition to Barna]. Numerous explanations have been offered by Christians to minimize this embarrassment, but none of them are convincing--or even relevant. Whatever our excuses, outsiders legitimately wonder, "If evangelicals want to enforce by law 'the sanctity of marriage,' why don't they try to outlaw divorce and remarriage? Better yet, why don't they stop worrying about laws to regulate others' behavior and spend their time and energy sanctifying their own marriages?

Do evangelicals fear gay marriage in particular because the Bible is much more clear about the wrongfulness of gay marriage than it is about the wrongfulness of divorce and remarriage? No, for the Bible actually says a good deal more against divorce and remarriage than it does against monogamous gay relationships. Do they go after this particular sin because the research shows that gay marriage is more damaging to society than divorce and remarriage? It seems not, for while one might grant that neither is ideal, there's no clear evidence that the former is socially more harmful than the latter--especially given the fact that divorce and remarriage is far more widespread than gay marriage. But in any case, this point is completely irrelevant since the present issue isn't over gay unions. The issue is only over whether these unions should be called "marriages." To the best of my knowledge, no one has shown that the social welfare of our nation is significantly harmed by what monogamous gay unions are called.

He continues, with biting sarcasm:

We evangelicals may be divorced and remarried several times; we may be as greedy and as unconcerned about the poor and as gluttonous as others in our culture; we may be as prone to gossip and slander and as blindly prejudiced as others in our culture; we may be more self-righteous and as rude as others in our culture--we may even lack love more than others in the culture. These sins are among the most frequently mentioned sins in the Bible. But at least we're not gay!

I want to continue to capture his words on this point, so here is his summary and analysis.

Tragically, the self-serving and hypocritical nature of this moral posturing is apparent to nearly everyone--except those who do the posturing. And just as tragically, it causes multitudes to want nothing to do with the good news we have to offer. While the church was supposed to be the central means by which people became convinced that Jesus is for real, activity like this has made the church into the central reason many are convinced he's not for real. If I had ten dollars for every time I've encountered someone who resisted submitting to Christ simply because they "can't stand Christians," I'd have a fairly robust bank account.

There's nothing beautiful or attractive about thus sort of self-serving, hypocritical behavior. The beauty of the cross and the magnetic quality of Calvary-quality love has been smothered in a blanket of self-righteous, self-serving, moralistic posturing

.

And again,

In our role as public representatives of the kingdom of God, Christians should stick to replicating Calvary toward gay people as toward all people), and trust that their loving service will do more to transform people than laws ever could.

2. Abortion

If there is an exception to Boyd's point, it would certainly be abortion, right? He tackles this issue head on, and starts off with a few points/questions to help us grasp this issue in America today:

1. There are many "difficult metaphysical and ethical questions to consider." (Like, when does it become human? When does the baby get a soul and take on the image of God? Is the morning after pill as bad as a late term abortion? How much should the government legislate vs letting the woman control her own body? etc.)

2. How will other political issues, like how to best help the poor, which has an undeniable link to abortions, affect how you vote?

3. "The polarized way the issue is framed in contemporary politics is largely a function of various groups trying to gain power over each other for what they believe to be the good of the whole."

The distinctly kingdom question is not, How should we vote? The distinctly kingdom question is, How should we live? How can we individually and collectively come under women struggling with unwanted pregnancies and come under unborn babies who are unwanted? How can we who are worse sinners than any woman with an unwanted pregnancy--and thus have no right to stand over them in judgment--sacrifice our time, energy, and resources to ascribe unsurpassable worth to them and their unborn children? How can we act in such a way that we communicate our agreement with Jesus that these women and their unborn children are worth dying for? How can we individually and collectively sacrifice for and serve women and their inwanted children so that it becomes feasible for the mother to go full term? How can we individually and collectively bleed for pregnant women and for unborn babies in a way that maximizes life and minimizes violence?

We answer these disticntly kingdom questions not with our votes but with our lives. And, note, we don't need to answer any of the world's difficult political and metaphysical questions to do it. The unique kingdom approach to abortion isn't dependant on convincing ourselves and others that we have "God's knowledge" about highly ambiguous questions. It's based on our call to love as Jesus loved. There's a sacred woman; there's a growing life inside her, which, however it got there and whatever speculations one holds about its metaphysical status, is a miraculous creation of God. And the only relevant question people need to answer is, Are we willing to bleed for both?

Thought on Boyd's treatment of either of these issues?

Next time we will look at chapter 8, "One Nation Under God?"